www.rsisinternational.org
Page 715
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Language Use and Choice Among the Semai Community in
Kampung Sungai Perah, Parit, Perak
Noor Saadah Salleh
1*
, Siti Nur Zulaika Binti Mohd Isyam
2
Department of Malay Studies, Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam,
Malaysia
*Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.924ILEIID0076
Received: 23 September 2025; Accepted: 30 September 2025; Published: 01 November 2025
ABSTRACT
This study examines the phenomenon of language choice among the Semai Indigenous community in
Kampung Sungai Perah, Parit, Perak, focusing on language proficiency and language use across different
domains. Fishman’s (1972) domain theory was employed as the conceptual framework to understand these
dynamics. Data were collected through structured questionnaires from 112 respondents, representing 20% of
the population, and analysed descriptively using SPSS. The findings indicate that Malay language is more
dominant across most communication domains, while the Semai language remains in use within family
settings and traditional ceremonies. These results highlight that the Semai language is endangered, particularly
among younger generations, and underscore the need for integrated revitalization strategies to ensure the
preservation of the community’s language and cultural heritage.
Keywords: Language choice, Semai Indigenous community, Minority language, Language sustainability,
Fishman’s Domain Theory
INTRODUCTION
The Semai language is the mother tongue of the Semai community, which belongs to the Austroasiatic
language family, specifically the Mon-Khmer branch. With 62,440 speakers, Semai is one of the largest
Indigenous languages in Peninsular Malaysia (JAKOA,2024). As an oral language, it plays an essential role in
preserving ethnic identity and serves as the primary medium of daily communication, particularly within the
domains of family, community activities, and traditional rituals. The language functions not only as a tool of
communication but also as a cultural heritage symbol that connects the Semai people to their ancestral roots.
Nevertheless, the position of the Semai language has become increasingly challenged due to the dominance of
Malay, which functions as the national language, the language of education, and the language of social
mobility. Recent research indicates that although Semai children still acquire Semai as their first language,
proficiency in Malay is steadily increasing because of schooling, socialisation, and interethnic interactions
(Sandai & Mahmud, 2023). This situation reflects the presence of unbalanced bilingualism, where Semai
remains resilient in intimate domains such as family and rituals, yet is increasingly marginalised in official and
public domains.
In this context, the phenomenon of language choice becomes a critical aspect to examine, as it reflects which
language is prioritised situations. Semai language is often used to maintain ethnic solidarity and intragroup
relationships, while Malay language is selected for education, employment, and broader social interactions.
Thus, language choice is not merely a communicative decision but also reflects the broader challenges of
sustaining minority languages within the forces of globalisation and social mobility.
Accordingly, this study focuses on language choice within the Semai Indigenous community in Kampung
Sungai Perah Parit, Perak, employing Fishman’s (1972) domain approach as the analytical framework.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 716
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Through this perspective, patterns of language choice can be identified to assess the extent to which Semai is
retained in daily
life and to evaluate the potential for language shift in the long term.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Studies on language choice among the Orang Asli community, particularly the Semai ethnic group, have
highlighted the various factors that influence the use of minority languages. The Semai language functions as
the mother tongue and the main medium in the domains of family, culture, and ritual, yet its position is
increasingly challenged due to the influence of Malay. Sandai and Mahmud (2023) found that although Semai
children still acquire Semai as their first language, proficiency in Malay is steadily increasing because of
formal education and social interaction. This illustrates the presence of unbalanced bilingualism among the
younger generation.
In addition, research conducted by Zailani, Makhtar, and Yusop (2022) on the Semai community in Hulu
Selangor revealed that the Semai language remains dominant in intimate domains such as family and ritual
ceremonies, but Malay language is preferred in education, employment, and inter-ethnic interactions. This
pattern is consistent with Fishman’s (1972) domain framework, which explains that majority languages tend to
dominate strategic domains, while minority languages persist in private spheres. This situation suggests that
the social status and functional role of a language determine the sustainability of Semai usage.
Furthermore, the study by Khairul Ashraaf Saari and Harishon Radzi (2023) examined language choice among
Orang Asli participants in missionary training programs in Kok Lanas across three main domains: teaching and
learning, inter-ethnic interaction, and social activities. Using a mixed-methods approach that combined
questionnaires, interviews, and observations, the findings demonstrated that Standard Malay was chosen as the
most effective language of interaction for enhancing participants’ understanding, while Temiar and the
Kelantan dialect continued to be used in specific contexts. These results underscore that language use is
dependent on the underlying social context of each domain.
Meanwhile, in a broader context, the study by Muhammad Imran Afzal, Liaqat Ali Mohsin, and Sadia Asif
(2022) on Punjabi speakers in Pakistan found that language shift occurs due to the dominance of majority
languages. Although Punjabi is still spoken, many speakers are now regarded as semi-speakers because they
increasingly shift to Urdu, English, and Arabic in particular domains. Domain analysis showed that the social
status and functional role of languages play a crucial role in shaping language choice. This study demonstrates
that the vitality of minority languages becomes weakened when they fail to maintain a foothold in strategic
domains.
Overall, this review highlights a consistent pattern in which minority languages such as Semai function mainly
in intimate domains like family and ritual but are increasingly marginalized in official and public spheres.
Therefore, this study makes an important contribution by examining language choice among the Semai Orang
Asli community in Kampung Sungai Perah Parit, Perak, using Fishman’s (1972) domain framework to assess
patterns of bilingualism and the potential for language shift in the contemporary context.
METHODOLOGY
This study employed a field-based mixed-methods approach that combined quantitative and qualitative
techniques to provide a comprehensive understanding of language proficiency and language choice among the
Semai Indigenous community in Kampung Sungai Perah, Parit, Perak. The use of mixed methods is considered
appropriate as it allows for triangulation and provides a more holistic analysis of sociolinguistic phenomena
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). A total of 112 respondents, representing 20% of
the village population (561 individuals), were selected using simple random sampling to ensure equal chances
of selection for all members of the population, a method widely recognized for reducing sampling bias (Etikan
& Bala, 2017).
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 717
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
The main research instrument was a structured questionnaire consisting of three sections, namely demographic
information, language proficiency, and language choice by domain. Structured questionnaires are effective
tools in sociolinguistic research for capturing systematic patterns of language use across domains (Milroy &
Gordon, 2003). Complementary qualitative data were obtained through field notes, with a focus on observing
language use in daily life, consistent with ethnographic approaches in language studies (Heller, 2008). All
questionnaire data were digitized, screened for completeness, and analysed using SPSS with descriptive
statistical methods, while the qualitative data were used to contextualize the quantitative findings. To ensure
validity, the questionnaire was reviewed by experts in minority language studies, aligning with best practices in
instrument development (Bryman, 2016)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Language Proficiency of the Semai Indigenous Community: Evidence from Kampung Sungai Perah, Parit,
Perak.
Table 1 Language Proficiency of the Semai Indigenous Community
Language
1 (VLP)
2 (LP)
3 (MP)
4 (P)
Mean
Semai Language (SL)
– (0%)
– (0%)
– (0%)
15 (13.4%)
4.90
Malay Language (ML)
– (0%)
3 (2.7%)
16 (14.3%)
61 (54.5%)
4.10
English Language (EL)
31 (27.7%)
22 (19.6%)
50 (44.6%)
9 (8.0%)
2.33
Perak Dialect (PD)
7 (6.3%)
42 (37.5%)
45 (40.2%)
12 (10.7%)
2.71
Note. VNP = Very Not Proficient, NP = Not Proficient, LP = Less Proficient, P = Proficient, VP = Very
Proficient
Table 1 shows that the Semai Language (SL) has the highest proficiency level (Mean=4.90), with almost all
respondents rated as 'very proficient'. This indicates that the mother tongue remains strong within the
community, particularly in the domains of family and culture. However, the Malay Language (ML) with a
similarly high mean score (4.10) demonstrates that the Semai generation not only retains their mother tongue
but also adapts to the majority language. This phenomenon highlights functional bilingualism, where the
Semai language dominates the identity domain, while ML dominates formal domains.
In contrast, English Language (EL) (Mean=2.33) and Perak Dialect (PD) (Mean=2.71) show low proficiency
levels, indicating they are not considered important for daily interaction. The low English proficiency reflects
that the Semai community emphasizes the utilitarian function of ML over EL. From Fishman’s (1972)
perspective, these findings reveal that the mother tongue still functions in intimate domains, but the dominance
of ML as the language of social mobility highlights a potential generational language shift.
Language Choice by Domain
Family Domain
Table 2 Language Choice in the Family Domain
Situation/Context
SL n (%)
ML n (%)
SL+ML n (%)
Total
%
Talking with grandparents
101 (90.18)
1 (0.89)
10 (8.93)
112
100
Talking with parents
102 (91.07)
– (–)
10 (8.93)
112
100
Talking with siblings
92 (82.14)
– (–)
20 (17.86)
112
100
Talking with spouse
44 (83.02)
2 (3.77)
7 (13.21)
53
100
Talking with close relatives
93 (83.04)
3 (2.68)
16 (14.29)
112
100
Talking with children
42 (80.77)
2 (3.85)
8 (15.38)
52
100
Note. SL = Semai Language; ML = Malay Language; SL+ML = Code-mixing of Semai and Malay.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 718
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
The examination of the family domain is essential as it represents the primary site for intergenerational
transmission of language and thus plays a critical role in the maintenance of minority languages such as the
Semai Language (SL). Situations with grandparents and parents demonstrate the dominance of SL (over 90%).
This reflects the continuity of the mother tongue in communication with the older generation, indicating that
the family domain remains a stronghold for language maintenance. The use of ML is almost non-existent,
suggesting that the older generation functions as guardians of the Semai language.
However, communication with siblings, spouses, and children shows a slight decline in the use of SL (80–
83%), with an increase in code-mixing between SL and ML. This indicates a generational shift, as ML begins
to penetrate intrafamily communication despite SL remaining dominant. Such a pattern reflects the common
situation where minority languages continue to be used at home but are increasingly mixed with majority
languages among younger generations.
Similarly, interaction with close relatives (83% SL, 14% SL+ML) demonstrates the same trend. SL is still the
primary choice, but ML increasingly appears in mixed forms, proving that ML is no longer confined to formal
domains but is starting to influence wider family interactions.
In sum, the analysis demonstrates that while SL continues to maintain vitality within the family domain, signs
of unbalanced bilingualism are increasingly evident as ML penetrates intergenerational communication. From
Fishman’s (1972) perspective, the family domain constitutes the cornerstone for the maintenance of minority
languages; however, within the Semai community this function appears to be gradually weakening. Should this
trend persist, it is plausible that future generations may come to prioritise ML for daily interactions, relegating
SL to a more symbolic role despite continued comprehension.
Friendship Domain
Table 3 Language Choice in the Friendship Domain
Situation/Context
SL n (%)
ML n (%)
SL+ML n (%)
Total (N)
%
Talking with Semai friends
101 (90.18)
– (–)
11 (9.82)
112
100
Talking with non-Semai friends
11 (9.82)
94 (83.93)
7 (6.25)
112
100
Note. SL = Semai Language; ML = Malay Language; SL+ML = Code-mixing between Semai and Malay.
The friendship domain plays a crucial role in understanding language dynamics as peer interactions often
shape language preferences among younger generations. Table 3 shows that language choice among peers is
strongly influenced by the ethnic background of interlocutors. In communication with fellow Semai peers, SL
is clearly dominant (90.18%) with minimal code-mixing (9.82%). This finding affirms that the mother tongue
continues to function as a symbol of intimacy and solidarity in intragroup friendships.
In contrast, interactions with non-Semai peers show a starkly different pattern: ML is used extensively
(83.93%), with SL limited to only 9.82% and code-mixing at 6.25%. This demonstrates that ML functions as
the lingua franca in interethnic relationships, consistent with its role as the national and educational language.
In summary, the friendship domain reflects situational bilingualism: SL dominates intragroup interaction, while
ML is prioritised in intergroup contexts. From Fishman’s (1972) perspective, this shows that the friendship
domain does not fully protect SL but instead opens pathways for ML dominance. In the long run, this pattern
could accelerate language shift if interethnic interactions become more frequent in the community’s daily life.
Neighbourhood Domain
Table 4 Language Choice in the Neighbourhood Domain
Situation/Context
SL n (%)
ML n (%)
SL+ML n (%)
SL+EL n (%)
%
Socialising with
103 (91.96)
1 (0.89)
8 (7.14)
– (–)
100
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 719
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Semai neighbours
Socialising with
non-Semai
neighbours
15 (13.39)
87 (77.68)
8 (7.14)
2 (2.24)
100
Talking with
elderly
neighbours
95 (84.82)
4 (3.57)
13 (11.61)
– (–)
100
Talking with
young neighbours
93 (83.04)
7 (6.25)
12 (10.71)
– (–)
100
Note. SL = Semai Language; ML = Malay Language; EL = English Language; SL+ML = Semai-Malay code-
mixing; SL+EL = Semai-English code-mixing.
Table 4 reveals that neighbourhood interactions continue to preserve the dominance of SL, particularly when
communicating with Semai neighbours. A total of 91.96% of respondents preferred SL in this context, with
only 7.14% engaging in code-mixing with ML. This suggests that SL serves as the language of solidarity
within a homogenous community setting.
However, interactions with non-Semai neighbours shift dramatically towards ML dominance (77.68%),
followed by SL (13.39%), SL+ML (7.14%), and SL+EL (2.24%). This reflects the role of ML as the lingua
franca in multicultural neighbourhood contexts. Although SL+EL usage is minimal, it signals the presence of
English influence in modern interactions, albeit marginal.
Age also appears to influence language use. While SL remains dominant with both elderly (84.82%) and young
neighbours (83.04%), the use of ML and code-mixing is slightly higher among younger neighbours (6.25%
ML; 10.71% SL+ML). This indicates that younger generations are more open to incorporating ML in daily
communication.
In general, the neighbourhood domain reflects situational bilingualism. SL retains its role as a marker of ethnic
identity, but ML dominates interactions with non-Semai neighbours and is gradually increasing among younger
generations. According to Fishman (1972), the neighbourhood should act as a space for mother tongue
maintenance, but these findings suggest that ML is increasingly reshaping linguistic balance in social spaces. If
this trend continues, SL risks being marginalised in future neighbourhood interactions
Education Domain
Table 5 Language Choice in the Education Domain
Situation/Context
SL n (%)
ML n (%)
SL+ML n (%)
Total (N)
%
Interaction with teachers/lecturers
– (–)
109 (97.32)
3 (2.68)
112
100
Sharing ideas with Semai peers
49 (43.75)
57 (50.89)
6 (5.36)
112
100
Academic discussions with non-Semai peers
1 (0.89)
107 (95.54)
4 (3.57)
112
100
Classroom activities
3 (2.68)
101 (90.18)
8 (7.14)
112
100
Extracurricular activities
9 (8.04)
95 (84.82)
8 (7.14)
112
100
Note. SL = Semai Language; ML = Malay Language; SL+ML = Semai-Malay code-mixing.
Table 5 demonstrates the overwhelming dominance of ML in all educational settings. In formal interactions
with teachers/lecturers, nearly all respondents used ML (97.32%), with only minimal code-mixing (2.68%).
This affirms the status of ML as the formal academic language, irreplaceable by SL.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 720
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
When interacting with fellow Semai students, SL is used moderately (43.75%), but ML remains slightly higher
(50.89%). This suggests that even among peers sharing the same mother tongue, ML is prioritised due to the
academic environment’s demand for formality. In academic discussions with non-Semai students, ML becomes
almost universal (95.54%), functioning as the undisputed lingua franca.
Both classroom and extracurricular activities reflect the same pattern: ML remains dominant (90.18% in class;
84.82% outside class), while SL use is very limited. Code-mixing appears at a low level (7–8%), signalling a
gradual shift in linguistic identity among the younger generation.
Findings in the education domain highlight that ML has almost completely replaced SL as a medium of
academic communication. From Fishman’s (1972) perspective, the role of education in sustaining mother
tongues is weak, as institutional pressures privilege majority languages. If this trend persists, SL may remain
confined to informal settings, shrinking its functional space among young Semai speakers.
Employment Domain
Table 6 Language Choice in the Employment Domain
Situation/Context
SL n (%)
ML n (%)
SL+ML n (%)
Total (N)
%
Interaction with non-Semai co-workers
8 (13.79)
50 (86.21)
– (–)
58
100
Work communication with Semai co-workers
39 (67.24)
16 (27.59)
3 (5.17)
58
100
Communication with employers
15 (25.86)
43 (74.14)
– (–)
58
100
Casual conversations at work
27 (46.55)
29 (50.00)
2 (3.45)
58
100
Note. SL = Semai Language; ML = Malay Language; SL+ML = Semai-Malay code-mixing.
Table 6 shows that ML is clearly dominant in most workplace contexts, particularly in interactions with non-
Semai colleagues (86.21%) and employers (74.14%). This underscores ML’s role as the language of social
mobility and formal communication in employment settings.
However, in communication with Semai co-workers, SL still plays an important role (67.24%), although ML is
also present at a moderate level (27.59%), with some code-mixing (5.17%). This indicates functional
bilingualism, where language choice depends on the social background of interlocutors.
In casual conversations at work, ML (50%) and SL (46.55%) are used almost equally, with minimal code-
mixing (3.45%). This suggests that while SL retains significance in informal contexts, ML continues to
consolidate its position.
Overall, the employment domain reinforces ML as the main language in formal affairs, while SL maintains its
role in intragroup and informal interactions. From Fishman’s (1972) framework, this pattern shows that the
workplace not only strengthens ML as a prestige language but also indirectly limits the functions of SL. If the
trend continues, SL risks being confined to “informal” usage within the community, lacking strength in formal
domains.
Religious Domain
Table 7 Language Choice in the Religious Domain
Situation/Context
SL n (%)
ML n (%)
SL+ML n (%)
Total (N)
%
Reciting prayers in places of worship
83 (74.11)
21 (18.75)
8 (7.14)
112
100
Language used in sermons
21 (18.75)
86 (76.79)
5 (4.46)
112
100
Communication with non-Semai religious leaders
8 (7.14)
99 (88.39)
5 (4.46)
112
100
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 721
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Communication with Semai religious leaders
83 (74.11)
20 (17.86)
9 (8.04)
112
100
Note. SL = Semai Language; ML = Malay Language; SL+ML = Semai-Malay code-mixing.
Table 7 shows clear distinctions in language use depending on roles and participants in religious events. In
prayer recitations at places of worship, SL is dominant (74.11%), reflecting the role of the mother tongue as a
vehicle of ritual and spiritual identity. However, in sermons, ML is dominant (76.79%), suggesting that the
majority language is deemed more appropriate for formal knowledge dissemination.
This difference is even more evident in communication with religious leaders. When non-Semai leaders are
involved, ML dominates nearly all interactions (88.39%), with SL used minimally (7.14%). Conversely, when
the leaders are of Semai origin, SL regains dominance (74.11%), although ML remains present at a moderate
level (17.86%). This indicates that linguistic identity is preserved when participants share the same cultural
background.
Overall, the religious domain highlights a functional division: SL is used for ritual and ethnic identity, while
ML dominates sermons and communication with external religious leaders. From Fishman’s (1972)
perspective, this shows that although SL remains relevant in religious settings, its usage increasingly depends
on the cultural background of participants. If this trend continues, SL may become restricted to cultural
symbolism without practical strength in the transmission of religious knowledge.
CONCLUSION
Overall, this study found that the Semai Indigenous community in Kampung Sungai Perah, Parit, continues to
maintain a high level of proficiency in their mother tongue, particularly the Semai language (SL), which
recorded near-universal competence among respondents. However, analysis of language choice across domains
revealed an unbalanced bilingual pattern, whereby SL remains dominant in the domains of family, ritual, and
intragroup interaction, while Malay language (BM) is increasingly dominant in the domains of education,
employment, and interethnic relations. This phenomenon is consistent with Fishman’s (1972) framework,
which emphasizes that domains play a crucial role in determining the sustainability of minority languages.
Although SL remains strong as a language of identity and ethnic solidarity, the penetration of BM into strategic
domains signals the potential for generational language shift, especially when the majority language is
perceived as more valuable for social mobility and educational advancement. In conclusion, the findings of this
study underscore that the sustainability of SL depends on efforts to strengthen its presence across multiple
domains, rather than being confined to domestic and ritual spaces, so that it does not merely serve as a cultural
symbol but continues to thrive as a medium of daily communication for future generations.
REFERENCES
1. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th
ed.). SAGE Publications.
2. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
3. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.).
SAGE Publications.
4. Devamany S. Krishnasamy & Asan Ali Golam Hassan. (2016). Masyarakat Orang Asli: Impak Program
Penempatan Semula. UUM Press
5. David, M. K., & Dealwis, C. (2008). Language use in the domain of neighbourhood: The case of the
Bidayuh in Sarawak. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre Journal, 39(2), 195–211.
6. Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., &Fennig, C. D. (2020.). Ethnologue: Languages of the World (23rd ed.).
SIL International
7. Etikan, I., & Bala, K. (2017). Sampling and sampling methods. Biometrics & Biostatistics International
Journal, 5(6), 215–217. https://doi.org/10.15406/bbij.2017.05.00149
8. Fasold, R. (1984). The Socioliguistics of Society. Oxford. Blackwell.
9. Fishman, J. A. (1972). The sociology of language: An interdisciplinary social science approach to
language in society. Newbury House.
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 722
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
10. Heller, M. (2008). Doing ethnography. In L. Wei & M. G. Moyer (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to research
methods in bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 249–262). Blackwell.
11. Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli (JAKOA). (2024). Taburan etnik Orang Asli mengikut etnik / sub-etnik
mengikut negeri. Retrieved September 20, 2025, from https://www.jakoa.gov.my/umum/taburan-etnik-
orang-asli-mengikut-etnik-sub-etnik-mengikut-negeri/
12. Khairul Ashraaf Saari & Harishon Radzi. (2023). Pemilihan Bahasa dalam Kalangan Peserta Latihan dan
Dakwah OrangAsli, Kok Lanas Berdasarkan Tiga Domain. Jurnal Linguistik. Vol 27 (1) Mei 2023 (129-
139)
13. Milroy, L., & Gordon, M. (2003). Sociolinguistics: Method and interpretation. Blackwell.
14. Noriah Mohamed. (2008). Language choice and identity among minority speakers in Malaysia. Kajian
Malaysia, 26(1–2), 1–20.
15. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative
approaches. SAGE Publications.
16. Sandai, R., & Mahmud, C. T. (2023). The influence of cultural attitudes on language development
amongst indigenous young Semai children. Southeast Asia Early Childhood Journal, 12(1), 1–10.
Retrieved from https://ejournal.upsi.edu.my/index.php/SAECJ/article/view/957
17. Weinreich, U. (1970). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.
18. Zailani, S. A. B., Makhtar, R., & Yusop, M. S. (2022). Pemilihan bahasa dalam masyarakat Semai di Hulu
Selangor. e-Bangi: Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 16(9), 115–132. Retrieved from
https://ejournals.ukm.my/ebangi/article/view/36294